Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of women art historians


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Consensus is clear enough, particularly after signficant improvements were apparently made to the article. Discussion about the proper specifics (e.g., inclusion of redlinks) are best left to the editorial process, not AfD. j⚛e deckertalk 01:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

List of women art historians

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of women-who-are-art-historians does not get significant coverage that I'm finding, and doesn't have a corresponding topic article. We do not have a general list of art historians nor a list of men art historians, and this does not appear to be a field where gender of the academic is a significant indicator of the type of work they do (as opposed to, say, a theoretical List of art historians specializing in the Renaissance era.) The original title given this article, List of art historians who happen to be women, suggests that even the creator thinks that gender is not directly related to the nature of the career. As such, this seems unencylopedic. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC) ''Note: original nominator vote changed to Weak Keep; see below. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)''


 * This is an interesting and informative list which does not duplicate information found elsewhere. It would be helpful if more information were eventually provided on each individual listed. --Eahonig (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is *exactly* because the subject does not get coverage that it is important! I think there should be a list of all art historians, and I have one in my sandbox, but as I have pointed out to you before, the reason why this list is important is because: A. Art history is an incredibly small and under appreciated discipline, the standard list has only 2475 on it, and B. There are only 200 women on that list! Most art historians, let alone the general public, are not even aware of this. This project is part of an effort to bring attention to the problem! Whether or not their work addresses gender in an explicit way is irrelevant, their gender is only important in so far as they appear to be grossly under represented. That is why the original title was "Art historians who happen to be women." Obviously I think that gender is related to the career trajectory and pay scales of art historians who happen to be women, but I do not think that whether or not they deal with gender as a subject in their own work, is at all relevant to the list. Also, and please do not take this personally, but as you are not an art historian, I am not sure you are properly qualified to be judging what the proper subject for art historians is. Because they don't necessarily work on gender they should not be listed? That makes no sense to me.  If football teams are encyclopedic, then art history departments are as well. If we can make lists of women artists, women astronauts, and women scientists, then we can make lists of women art historians. Or, more properly, as far as I am concerned: Lists of art historians who happen to be women! (Vhfs (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC))
 * I understand that you think that because there is not coverage elsewhere, it is important that it gets covered here. However, that flies against the most basic statement of what qualifies for an article on Wikipedia, our General Notability Guideline, which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I think it's excellent that you want to delve into the topic, and there are plenty of places on and off the Internet where it would be appropriate to do so. I am in no way judging what the proper subject for art historians is, I am using my long experience as a Wikipedia editor to make a judgment as to what fits our guidelines of inclusion. I can find significant outside coverage on women astronauts and women scientists, so that doesn't have the notability problem. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am using my long term experience as an art historian to try to impress upon you that this list is a worthy and important topic, exactly because it is exceptional. The subject is covered in no other venue, not even by the College Art Association, so Wikipedia is now home to new scholarship in the field, unavailable anywhere else, in the world. And there are plenty of excellent sources, the online dictionary of art historians, to name just one. It is so absurd to me that I would have to fight to keep this entry. Wikipedia has a real problem. You better address it or I am going to write to Ms Magazine about it. I might just do it anyway because this is total fucking bullshit. (Vhfs (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC))
 * "so Wikipedia is now home to new scholarship in the field, unavailable anywhere else" - which is precisely and specifically one of the things that Wikipedia is not, a publisher of original research. And there are plenty of places in this world that are designed for publishing original research. I'm not sure why it upsets you so that someone is pointing out that this is not one of those places. It's like walking into a Pizza Hut and getting upset that they won't sell you a hamburger when there are three burger joints on the block. Not only that, there are tools for building your own burger shop; you seem to have a lot of enthusiasm for a far deeper chronicling of academia then fits into Wikipedia guidelines, and that might make for a great wiki all its own - and the same software that Wikipedia runs on is available for free for you to use, and there are even sites that already have that or similar software installed and will allow you to set up a wiki where you and you alone set up the guidelines for inclusion. Or you might write an article on the topic - I don't know if art history journals would also be interested in such an aspect on the history of art history instead of just the history of art, but I would suspect that between those journals, journals of feminist studies, and even popular magazines such as Ms., there'd be a place for a well-written article on the historical and changing place of women in the field. And as a bonus, the publication of such an article in a reliable source would make both good reference for Wikipedia and support the argument that Wikipedia should cover it, because it's being covered elsewhere. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete this version. A version that is properly cited and linked to articles should be kept.  This is just an unreferenced list of names. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. No need shown for this list. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete . As has been remarked, our policy is to avoid indiscriminate lists. RomanSpa (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep, following excellent work by and . RomanSpa (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing all relevant guidelines and being essentially unworkable into something that does not. While there are a number of ways to arrive at a valid list of people, this doesn't meet any of them. There is no List of art historians (or even List of lists of art historians) within which this could function as an index of articles complementary to Category:Art historians, and so it doesn't fall within WP:NOTDUP. Note also that the existing category structure is subdivided by field of study and by nationality, not by gender, and so there's no help there. Without a master list this can't be justified as a WP:SPLIT either, which in any event we'd expect some justification for splitting out women as a subgroup for this particular occupation, as doing so may make sense for some but not other occupations. If the list's defender's comments are any indication, however, women art historians is not a recognized or discussed grouping in secondary sources, which means WP:LISTN is not met...which also means there is not any basis for listing nonnotable names. And as this is barely even a list of articles, given how few bluelinks there are (and even some of those point to disambiguation pages), it does not meet WP:LISTPURP. Reconfiguring it into a valid master list of art historians would basically require a completely fresh start, which would be easier to do as a data dump from our category structure than by trying to work with this, so per WP:TNT, WP:ATD is not practical. Bottom line, we don't do original research here, and even when doing something as factually mundane as indexing Wikipedia articles by verifiable facts, we try to follow established practices that make sense for the subject matter rather than inventing our own. Show that there are secondary sources expressly discussing the role and/or experience of women in art history (as there undoubtedly are for women artists) and the analysis would change. A better use of editor time might be to research individual women art historians to write and expand our biographical articles on them, and if editors want to keep a working list of missing articles for their own benefit they can do so in their userspace. postdlf (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep as improvements have rendered most of my arguments moot, particularly WP:TNT. I still think this was the wrong way to go about it, and it would have been more productive to start from scratch rather than completely reworking the preexisting page (really the same thing in the end perhaps), but whatever. Once you're there, how you got there matters less. We still should also have a master list(s) of all WP articles on art historians subdivided by nationality and by specialization, complementary to the category system. postdlf (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tell me why you can make seasonal pages for football teams, that include notable and non-notable teams and players, statistics, and not have similar pages for departments and universities? I cannot help the fact that this idea is so new and fresh, nobody gets it, not even people in my own discipline. It is because my discipline is so lame and underdeveloped that it has not even bothered with this question. And that is why we need this list! TO help it grow and change, to help it develop some badly needed self-reflexivity. You know, I don't think there is even one book on women art historians. Which is super weird when you think about it because when artists depict personifications of the arts, it is rarely a male. Women have always had a central, but unacknowledged role in the protection and advancement of the arts. And yet, like most women's work, it is regularly overlooked, ignored, dismissed, or belittled. Much like this list is being dismissed and belittled. You have a list of women writers, and artists, how come you cannot have a list of women art historians? Explain that. This is no different. I don't want a separate Wikipedia for it because this list belongs here. I am happy to fix the notes, and I want to make it a searchable spreadsheet. I can't believe you guys. You seem to think you get to make all the decisions. Wikipedia is a collective project, if you want to keep helping Wikipedia to expand and grow in new, unpredictable ways, you have to let new strong voices with different perspectives in. Voices that happen to be female. Otherwise, good luck with all the football team pages. Great work. Important work. Clearly information that is unavailable elsewhere. Really. Football. That is what I think of when I think about true civilization, and the best parts of humanity. Football will take us into the future and affirm our collective humanity every step of the way. I can't wait. (Vhfs (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC))  p.s. I have a list of art historians in my sandbox but it also needs to be footnotes, and I cannot do everything at once. As much as I would like to be able to. (Vhfs (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC))
 * As has already been expressed to you above in multiple ways, we only do information that is available elsewhere. If your own field is not doing this, then we certainly will not. postdlf (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I heartily agree with the sentiment voiced by Vhfs. That is why I don't edit sports-related articles, because I'm not interested in that stuff and find it completely trivial. However, never mind how unfortunate I think this is, from an encyclopedic point of view, even minor sports figures are often much more notable than even many important academics. Simply because many more people are interested in, say, field hockey than Etruskan architecture. So field hockey players get coverage in reliable sources and valuable academics don't. Same goes for almost anybody having played a minor role in some obscure soap. Hence, these people are notable whereas many academics miss the bar. Like it or not, it's a fact of life. --Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure why you think there's an anti-female agenda here, but the chip on your shoulder is probably not the best way to convince people that the article should stay. Just because an editor thinks the article is not enyclopedic does not necessarily make them a misogynist. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. It seems that Vhfs, like many people, has come to Wikipedia in perfectly good faith, in the sincere belief that Wikipedia is a good place to use for the purpose of promoting a cause which she believes deserves more attention. Like many people (including myself when I first started editing Wikipedia) she has evidently seen the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit as an ideal medium for publishing original research that has not received coverage elsewhere. All that is fully understandable. What is less understandable is that she persists in that view after repeatedly having it explained, both on this page and elsewhere, that Wikipedia policies and guidelines say otherwise. Both she and the one other single-purpose account that has argued for keeping, in attempting to argue to keep the article, have in fact made an astonishingly strong case for deletion.
 * Leaving aside such irrelevances as "You better address it or I am going to write to Ms Magazine about it", "Tell me why you can make seasonal pages for football teams", "Football will take us into the future and affirm our collective humanity every step of the way. I can't wait" (See WP:OTHERSTUFF), the reasons given for keeping are essentially the following two points:
 * "Does not duplicate information found elsewhere", "The subject is covered in no other venue, not even by the College Art Association, so Wikipedia is now home to new scholarship in the field, unavailable anywhere else, in the world", and other forms of words saying that we should keep it because there is no substantial coverage in existing sources, and because it is original research that Wikipedia can publish. Unfortunately, Vhfs is showing a remarkable failure to hear what has repeatedly been said to her, both on this page and elsewhere: namely that under Wikipedia policy those are in fact good reasons for not keeping the article: see WP:NOTE and WP:NOR.
 * "And that is why we need this list! TO help it grow and change, to help it develop some badly needed self-reflexivity." In other words, the purpose of the page is to serve a campaign to promote and publicise a cause which Vhfs believes is deserving of more attention. However, that again is, under Wikipedia policy, a reason for not keeping the article: see WP:NOTADVOCATE.
 * If Vhfs wants "Wikipedia to expand and grow in new, unpredictable ways" then she is perfectly free to suggest changing Wikipedia's polices to allow that to happen, but this deletion discussion will be assessed by the closing administrator on the basis of currently existing policies and guidelines. Putting forward reasons which are directly contrary to those current policies and guidelines, because she doesn't like them, is unlikely to result in a "keep" decision. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This list does, or could reasonably be expanded to, fulfil WP:LISTPURP's criteria of Information, Navigation, and Development. Information, because if expanded to be searchable by date and location, it would inform readers about the historical development and geographical dispersal of women working in art history; in particular, it would provide this information which categorization alone would not de. Navigation, because it is a natural place for those looking for articles on female art historians and feminist art history to find relevant articles. And Development, because this list provides a good way of keeping track of whether Wikipedia is doing a good job of covering women in art history. Contrary to the nominators claim that female art historians is not a topic with significant coverage, the gender of art historians is in fact a widely discussed topic in feminist art history; a simple Google search, for instance, turned up this collection of relevant resources: http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199920105/obo-9780199920105-0034.xml . The fact that there are no List of art historians or List of male art historians articles isn't relevant; the fact that no-one has taken the effort to make those lists doesn't mean that this list doesn't fulfil Wikipedia's criteria on its own merits. VoluntarySlave (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Question for User:VoluntarySlave: This is certainly the best case made for keeping the article (and I think the division that some are trying to paint as male-versus-female commentors on this is more a matter of experienced-wiki-editors-versus-relative-or-total-newcomers), and I will have to look at the sources more carefully (there's a thick layer of academic-speak that I have to weed through to understand to what degree it's talking about women in art, to what degree it is talking about women in art history, and to what degree it is talking about feminism in art history; I'm not one of those folks for whom that is a natural tongue). However, I'm still trying to picture what this article would look like in its ideal state. Does it include all women art historians, which apparently includes thousands registered in the US alone (and certainly the list, under this title at least, should not be limited to the US), which runs into real problems of WP:LENGTH, as well as concerns about it being more a directory than something encyclopedic? Or is it limited to "notable" women art historians, which would seem to run against the goal of at least some involved here, because the women in the field have failed to receive due note? Or is there some third vision that I'm missing? I'd be interested in hearing your perception of it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This list needs some editorial work, but it provides a badly needed representation of women in a field (my field) where they are often marginalized despite being the dominant gender. Although most art history departments are largely populated by women, they are often chaired or directed by men. If there is not a list of women art historians published elsewhere, let's take a moment to reflect upon why that is the case, and ask ourselves if this gender problem has anything to do with it... If we publish a list of women art historians elsewhere, will it make this list 'encyclopedic'? Any less encyclopedic than, as someone pointed out, a list of football players? Aren't faculty department webpages enough? It appears that the (male) editors here are outwardly stifling the voices of women contributors, a problem well-documented in the Wikipedia community. A list of professional art historians is not "original research" and has an equal significance as "Women Artists." And to get to the point before the Wiki-bros do (btw --- I am a man myself) let's just acknowledge, for the record, that women artists don't always make art about being a women, and thus gender isn't "directly related to the nature of their career." Should we delete that thread too? Please hold back the snarky, privileged tone while we have this discussion.  --Studiojunk (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC) — Studiojunk (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Like other people arguing for "keep", you say we should keep the article to promote further public exposure of people who you think at present does not have enough coverage. However, as has been explained above under Wikipedia policy (1) use of Wikipedia to promote is unacceptable, and (2) lack of substantial coverage in existing reliable sources is a reason for deletion, so like most of the arguments advanced on this page for "keep", your arguments are actually reasons for deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - (apologies up front-this was not typed on my computer. Time felt of the essence. Forgive my quickness on a small screen. TY.) The basis given for this entire debate feels very much like the "Some Men/Not All Men" / men deserve equal rights arguments personified. To suggest that a page such as this should necessitate a list of all art historians as well as male art historians is reductive. Like it or not ( I don't; yet as an educator and academic scholar, very much not an art historian, I would be very remiss to ignore this) our gender still has significant implications for what we are permitted to do, what we are actually able to do, and what may be seen as accomplished once we're finished. This field-like nearly every professional field within the the academies (or simply, nearly every professional field)-is male dominated, and as such, the work that is done, that is granted approval to progress, and that is seen by wider audiences, does so only with male approval. In no way am I suggesting that every male in this field wields tyrannical Man control (don't put further "some men" arguments into this); as fields have moved forward throughout the years, many have progressed and have allowed influences to diffuse. And still many have not. That's the issue here: And still many have not. In a world where positive influence and inspiration for women and young girls isn't easily found-list such as these say, "scholarship like this is for you too." When we highlight even the smallest population of women, though it may really upset the "Some Men" out there who don't see a list of the corresponding "All the Mens" list, and feels as though their equal rights have been squashed, we're still saying and showing that it matters to have women, gender and all, in these fields. And in doing so, no rights have been taken from any man, anywhere. Essentially every list such as this, prior to when, would have been all men...so, those list are there, throughout history. Ideally, women and men would support this-that's where gender is truly negated here: we have to come together in our understandings that gender still matters. Claiming it doesn't is like insisting race is a non-issue now (I'm throwing all the shade possible now as I type this...). This is an interesting/pop culture way to see this in action: Check out NASAs Wikis-see the number of female astronauts-note who they are. Then look for the lists of minority astronauts...compare that to the list of White Male astronauts... yeah-NASA isn't daffy enough to make that last one so easy to find-because it's basically a math problem-minus out all the other individuals on the lists and you have your new list of WMs. Sometimes it simply isn't about all the men, or even some of the men; sometimes, it's about the women (ALL of them) that have been systematically ignored for thousands of years. TY rad supporters of equality for all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah DeLe (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)  — Sarah DeLe (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You really do your case no good at all by misrepresenting the case for deletion as being about men: the case for deletion is that the article does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Leaving that aside, your argument is substantially about using Wikipedia to promote further exposure of women art historians to public view, because you see them as not getting coverage so far. However, as already explained above, under Wikipedia policy those are two reasons for deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're taking an unnecessarily aggressive tone in your responses -- especially the bold striking, which comes off as incredibly dismissive and redundant. Can you clarify how a list of women art historians is "promotional" and why it matters that such a list does not already exist? Because Wikipedia? Is there some master list of "fictional political parties" out there, from a reputable source, or should we take that one down as well? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_political_parties --Studiojunk (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That looks ripe for AfD to me, and you're very welcome to help the encyclopedia out by nominating it. GoldenRing (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You might find the debate at Articles for deletion/List of Indian women instructive as to how this debate is likely to be assessed. A solution proposed there might well be appropriate here, that of converting this list to a category.  Rather than maintain a list of women art historians, you can add  to articles for each member of the category, and a category page will be automatically generated for it.  This will cut down the number of people on the list, as many of them are likely to be not notable by wikipedia standards, but it also has a somewhat lower bar for keeping compared to a list or article and it is much easier to maintain than a list.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I concur with Voluntary Slave. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NOTADIRECTORY. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I have to point out that JamesBWatson deleted another article I worked on for over *two months* with my students, on university art museums and galleries, in what I would call a vindictive manner, and I was forced to petition to have it undeleted (and the process can take over two months if you are wondering), so I would have to say that it is very likely that his opinion on this matter is colored by our previous disagreements. If you are curious at all you can see for yourself what happened on my Sandbox talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vhfs/sandbox. I am still waiting to have the article undeleted (it was so great!) Read it for yourself and decide. Otherwise, there are not "1000s" of women art historians in the US, the fact of the matter is that we know that there are 3500 registered art historians all together, and and then many more that are unregistered. So let's say, on the outside there are 3000 women art historians in the US (an educated guess). We still have no way of knowing how many there are around the world, maybe 7000 all told, but if entered into a searchable spreadsheet, by nationality, location, school, and specialization, I think it would be quite manageable. Here is the list I made with my students, I am thinking something like this, but bigger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_university_art_museums_and_galleries_in_New_York_State I am with VoluntarySlave!!! (Vhfs (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC))
 * That JamesBWatson was involved in another deletion is not surprising; he is an active Wikipedia editor and an administrator, so he gets involved in a lot. My statement of thousands come from their being 3500 registered and the assertion of another art historian in this thread that females now predominate the field (albeit not in leadership positions), which suggest to me at least a couple thousand - i.e., thousands. And even if your estimate of current worldwide women art historians is accurate at 7000, remember that your plans seem not to include just current art historians, but historical art historians; while they may not have been as plentiful in the past, that would still seem to add a considerable fraction on top of that. I certainly haven't looked at every list on Wikipedia, but within the ones I have looked at, I cannot recall one being a tenth as long as what you seem to be aiming for, and it would seem to run into problems with our WP:LENGTH guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are notable lists and categories along similar lines; for instance, Category:Women mathematicians has a clear case for notability (it includes two topic-specific associations and a separate title article with many relevant sources). But in this case, I don't see reliable sourcing elsewhere for treating women art historians, specifically, as a noteworthy class of people. (I can find sourcing for feminist art history and historians, but that appears to be a different topic.) Certainly, if this is kept, it should be pared back to only those people who have their own Wikipedia articles, per standard Wikipedia rules for lists of people. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. The list has been significantly improved since my earlier !vote: the density of names with linked articles is now much higher (although still not yet close to one; it looks like that change is still in progress) and there is some referenced introductory text on the general subject. I'm still not entirely convinced that this topic meets WP:GNG but it is a lot better and I want to hold off on deciding again until this set of changes is complete. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 *  Keep -- In fact Nat Gertler, it *is* rather surprising that JamesBWatson decided to weigh in on this question. There are 21,407,333 Wikipedians, and over 4,519,307 articles. What are the chances the same editor would swoop in twice, on two very different kinds of articles, whose only similarity is that *I* happen to be involved in them? Fairly low I think, unless he is, you know, keeping tabs on my activities. That would be weird and perverse. Don't you think? I have only worked on three pages. Well five if you count the Franchise universitaire page on the French Wikipedia, and then that "Wikipedia's dude problem" page (surprisingly that didn't go anywhere...) Anyhow, on another subject entirely, I found this amazing list! Which goes up to 5000, and it does not seem too unwieldy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits The bottom line is that we really have no idea how many women art historians there are, but I will gladly buy Nat Gertler a t-shirt that says "I tried to delete the first list of women art historians in the world and I failed" if we get past 4000. I am really not kidding.  (Vhfs (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC))
 * You have now posted two bolded Keep recommendations. Please strike one of them out, per WP:AFD: "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line."
 * There may be 21 million Wikipedians; there are not 300 who have made as many edits to this project as JamesBWatson, so one would expect to see him in far more places than the average.
 * The similarity between two list articles on the arts is not only that you were involved with them; they are both list articles on the arts.
 * "Keeping tabs on your activities", as in, say, having your talk page on his watch list, would be neither weird nor perverse. He was communicating with you on that page, so it would make sense for him to have it on his watch list, and he would thus be notified when things like the listing of the article for this deletion discussion appeared on that page. (Note: I am not saying that he is doing this; I neither have nor want access to his watch list.)
 * It is often good for the encyclopedia for an experienced editor to keep an eye on an editor who is either having problems or causing trouble. These are not your intimate secrets here, these are your public edits on a project that is collaborative in nature.
 * The list you indicate is not in "article space", so it is not subject to the same guidelines that articles are. As to whether it is unwieldy, I am accessing this from a high-speed Internet connection on a computer that is only a few years old. Not everyone is so privileged.
 * You may keep your bribes to yourself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Vhfs, your comments about the numbers of articles and the number of Wikipedians, followed by "What are the chances the same editor would swoop in twice", appear to be based on an assumption that people select what they do on Wikipedia at random. That is far from being so. It is common for editors to follow up on things they have already done, in various ways, so that an editor is quite likely to check on things related to what he or she has recently had involvement with. Since you are concerned about how I came to this discussion, I will tell you. My first awareness of your existence came as a result of your posting a request for help at User talk:Vhfs/sandbox. One of the things that I regularly do on Wikipedia is check the list of Wikipedians who have pending requests for help, so I saw your request, and posted a reply to it. Subsequently, you posted two more request for help on the same page, and I saw one of those two, and responded to it. Having twice offered help to the same editor, I later checked back, to see how that editor was getting on, and saw that you had posted a message addressed to me on the same page, in which you asked me to give further information which I answered. Seeing an editor who had not only several times asked for help, but had also specifically asked me for information, perhaps it would not be unreasonable if I decided at this point to check up again, to see if you needed more help. You posted another request for help to the same page, which I saw, and to which I responded. However, that was not all. One of the administrative tasks that I sometimes do is assessing requests at Requests for undeletion, and one of the requests that came up there was a request from you concerning a page that I had deleted. I posted a message there, suggesting that the content of the article could be made available to you, perhaps by email, or perhaps by undeletion, leaving the decision to an independent administrator to make. By this time, I had had a significant amount of contact with you, all of which had been initiated by requests of one sort or another from you. What is more, one of those requests, specifically addressed to me, was one which I would never have seen had I not chosen to come back and check how you were getting on. It does not seem to me, under those circumstances, in any way sinister or malicious that I was by then taking enough notice of what you were doing that I saw this deletion discussion.
 * I offer you a word of advice for taking part in discussions on Wikipedia. Avoid making accusations of bad faith against other editors, even if you believe the accusations are justified, because doing so gives a negative impression of you to other editors. At best, someone reading your comments will think you may have justification, but that making the accusation does not further your case about whether the article should be deleted, which will be assessed on the merits of the arguments advanced, not on the perceived motives of those taking part in the discussion. At worst, someone reading your comments will see them as completely unreasonable, which will tend to discourage them from taking notice of your views. My experience over the years is that editors who assume good faith, even when they may have doubts, usually have a far more successful time here than those who are frequently ready to assume bad faith. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Do you think that maybe you guys are trying to sandbag this project with endless blahblah about "the rules" and authoritarian male bullshit? I officially rescind my offer to buy you a t-shirt Nat Gertler since you imagine, so easily, that it could be construed as a bribe. But I am greatly relieved to learn that the article will "be assessed on the merits of the arguments advanced, not on the perceived motives of those taking part in the discussion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhfs (talk • contribs) 10:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)  — Vhfs (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Vhfs (UTC).
 * You stated earlier "You seem to think you get to make all the decisions. Wikipedia is a collective project[...]". Yes, Wikipedia is a collective project. That includes the many, many thousands of people, both female and male, who have worked (and continue to work) to formulate and refine the various policies, guidelines, and procedures that, while imperfect, have shaped Wikipedia into this great-if-imperfect resource that it is. So when you call on us to ignore what they have done, you are not asking us to act as if it's a collective project. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

*Delete since almost none of these actually have articles about them, and there really isn't any way to verify any of the information presented in the article due to it's staggering lack of sources. G S Palmer (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC) (Vhfs (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC))
 * Comment Nat Gertler Please don't take this personally but I am just going to ignore you from now on if you don't mind. But check this out! It looks really great! http://msmagazine.com/blog/2014/05/21/writing-her-in-wikipedia-as-feminist-activism/ (Vhfs (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC))
 * Comment: it may have already been pointed out to you,, but Wikipedia is not the place for Righting Great Wrongs. G S Palmer (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: At least 200 of them do (talk), I just have not got around to adding them yet. But not everyone listed in Wikipedia has articles about them, do they? Such as the List of Wikipedians by number of edits Anyway, all the push back I am getting for this project, actually has nothing to do with this list, which would be, under normal circumstance, completely unremarkable. It has only attracted some weird unwanted attention because of a much bigger, much more radical project I want to undertake. I think the dudes are just trying to prevent me from getting any momentum. If you visit the talk page for my Sandbox you will understand what the real fuss is about.
 * I will point out that the list of Wikipedians by number of edits is in Wikipedia space and not an article, similar to the various policy pages, and therefore has no bearing on this. G S Palmer (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And for those interested in understanding Vhfs' position and reasons for creating the article, see this comment that she left on my talk page. G S Palmer (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure on what basis you're claiming that the "push back" has "nothing to do with this list". As the editor who brought this to WP:AFD, I can tell you that when I did so, I was unaware of any other kerfuffle that you had been involved in. I did not read your Talk page until you started your personal attack on JamesBWatson (the posts that you see "from me" there were placed automatically by WP:TWINKLE, the tool that I use to mark articles that to bring them into the articles for deletion process.) I can also tell you that it is normal for an article that has been brought to AFD to get the attention of editors, because there is a listing for doing just that, and then Gene93K comes along and does fine work placing it in certain subcategories by interest, so editors particularly interested in those categories can find those discussions. I would appreciate if you would retract your unfounded accusation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: A list of names is not original research. The definition of research, according to OED online: "Systematic investigation or inquiry aimed at contributing to knowledge of a theory, topic, etc., by careful consideration, observation, or study of a subject." Nor is this list a "directory." Nor does every name on every Wikipedia list have its own entry (though I do understand that, according to WP:NOTIFS, they should). I see no other reason why this list should not exist as long as all names have their own entries. According to WP:COI, some editors should consider lending their knowledge and experience to one of the other 4.5 million articles, as their work on this subject no longer seems to be aligned with Wikipedia's mission: "to empower and engage people...to collect and develop educational content..." They seem to be more concerned with using their power and privilege to destroy this much-needed list. --Unitedcrushers 23:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC) — Unitedcrushers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Well, thank you for that bad faith comment. G S Palmer (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you feel you can show that JamesBWatson and I have conflicts of interest, you may raise a case at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, describing the supposed conflict and reasons why we should be barred from editing this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Added later: Please note that my comment and the one preceding were made before User:Unitedcrushers deleted my name and Watson's name from his comment. (Perhaps he figured out that Watson and I both already contribute to far more articles than most Wikipedia editors?) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete – Mostly unsourced, mostly non-notable entries, and very little worth salvaging. May I also mention the lack of articles titled List of art historians and List of men art historians? (If they existed, I would have suggested a merge. Oh, well.) Epicgenius (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - The lack of those other articles doesn't inherently mean that we cannot have this article, of course; I pointed to them in my original filing mainly because if the either existed, it might be a good candidate for "merge" (and if the "men" article had existed and had survived an AFD in the past, that would make some strong points for arguing that this article should survive as well.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Even without a merge—which would have been my preferred choice—this list is poorly sourced (only 4 refs) and consists of 90% non-notable names. Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that there isn't a separate list for men is a rather fatuous deletion argument that rather misses the point of why we ever separate out women or other minorities in other fields. The better point is that we don't automatically make separate demographic lists for every occupation, but instead generally expect some showing that the particular group (whether ethnic, sex, etc.) has been recognized in secondary sources as of relevance to a cultural or historic understanding of that occupation. So every protest above that this is novel work or that we should do it because no one else is doing it is by that measure actually an argument for deletion. And I agree with you on the dismal merge/expansion prospects of this list. postdlf (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that at some point this article may be merited - but only once an extensive List of art historians (which would have to be well sourced and consist almost entirely of notable figures) has been in existence for a long enough time and is extensive enough to be split. In other words, this is a case where WP:TNT is applicable.  G S Palmer (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. This needs to be nuked, with only the salvageable 10% of the article recreated into a more comprehensive list of women historians. Epicgenius (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am changing my vote to keep due to the cleanup performed on the article by and . Epicgenius (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:TNT doesn't apply; there's no reason, if more refs are desirable, that you can't add refs. An interesting topic. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Two sections of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions are relevant to that comment. "It's interesting" does not establish notability: see [[WP:INTERESTING. Saying that there are sources if anyone wants to find them, without actually providing any sources, is covered by WP:MUST. Sources that someone vaguely suggests "must exist somewhere" but does not say where are not verifiable. 217.158.67.208 (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC) — 217.158.67.208 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I was writing an informal and common sense endorsement, not WikiLawyering. In strict policy terms, the topic is clearly notable and the mediocre sourcing is no grounds for deletion, I am pointing out that sources should be easily found, and the deletion argument IP advances sounds a lot like an attempt to grind a WP:AXE against feminism, anonymously, through an argument that's really just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MarkBernstein (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_mathematicians (04:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhfs (talk • contribs)
 * Hey hey hey!
 * So? See WP:WAX. The case for notability for female mathematicians is clear because of associations like the Association for Women in Mathematics and books like Women in Mathematics (Lynn M. Osen, MIT Press, 1974; my copy says it's the 15th printing from 1999). And you will also note that that list is almost entirely bluelinks. This list, on the other hand, mostly lists people with no Wikipedia article yet and sources for separating out women as an interesting subclass of the art historians seem hard to find or nonexistent. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The List of female mathematicians, for the most part, contains only notable names, i.e. those with articles. And there's also category:Lists of mathematicians. Epicgenius (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. As it stands, this is a nothing more than a poorly-sourced list of names. As mentioned previously, Wikipedia is not a directory, and very few of the art historians listed within the article currently have a Wikipedia page, which I believe undermines the notability of the list.  Meanwhile, in attempting to keep the article, the creator has threatened to write to Ms Magazine, mentioned football a few times, attempted to justify the article through WP:OTHERSTUFF, tried to turn the deletion debate into men vs. women, and has been downright rude to JamesBWatson, in particular.  Considering the article is already in danger of being deleted due to notability and sourcing concerns, those arguments do not seem like the most productive way to defend the article. Drpickem (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - sourced as per VoluntarySlave and in the interest of avoiding systematic WP:BIAS. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't keep a list of female art historians merely because it would help to redress gender imbalance; that smacks of being here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You might as well say we should keep a list of female house-owners because to delete it would be to further systemic bias.  It's true that it would, but the subject is not notable.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi GoldenRing!
 * I'm not referring to systematic bias in the outside world - the Real World - just the systematic bias within Wikipedia that's described at WP:BIAS.
 * WP:BIAS describes one of the problems as "a dearth of articles on neglected topics".
 * The nominator named the absence of a topic article as one reason for deletion. IMO the fact that this seems to be a neglected topic within WP should not be cause for us to neglect it even more, thus exacerbating the bias.
 * Hope that's clearer.
 * --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The noting of the absence of a topic article served toward being rigorous about checking for notability; while the absence does not prove lack of notability, the presence of a topic article, particularly had it survived an AFD itself, would have been clear indication that the general topic was notable, and a properly curated list would likely be appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Question - could someone explain to me why lists such as this one are permitted on WP at all? WP:SAL says "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines" but these policies are routinely flouted in hundreds of article such as this one. Take the first name - it just says "Adams, Ann", none of the other boxes are filled in, no reference, no link to another WP article (although that would not count as a reference), nothing. How do we know there is even such a person, never mind an art historian notable enough to be on WP? It could be somebody's auntie that a bored teenaged added to the list as a joke. IMO all these list articles are just stupid and worthless as encyclopedia articles, every name on that list should be deleted unless it is cited to a reliable source establishing notability.Smeat75 (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be, very roughly and crudely put, why the article is listed at AfD. GoldenRing (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - as per many others here. On two grounds:  1) WP:RS are lacking for almost all of this list, suggesting a lack of notability of the subject.  2) What references there are, are almost entirely to a website called 'www.dictionaryofarthistorians.org', suggesting that even if the article was well-referenced, it would be a WP:DIRECTORY.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * [Update: Drmies votes keep after article improvement and DGG's comments.] There is no conceivable reason why a list of women art historians could not exist. I suppose the only thing that should be established in such an article is a rationale for why it should focus on women (setting aside any third gender or other options). If it is true, for instance, that women are underrepresented in that profession, as they are for instance in math and physics (I worked on a female physicist's article, forgot which, in the context of a women edit-a-thon last year, if I remember correctly--one of those women who couldn't get a real job or real position: I think she was the wife of a German refugee, at Princeton?), and such a truth, if it exists, should be bolstered by reliable sources, then we have a perfectly valid reason for writing it up. Such a rationale does not exist for List of male physicists, to take an obvious example. But while a link was given to "purpose" (WP:LISTPURP), no link was given to WP:LSC ("criteria") or, better yet, WP:CSC, "selection criteria". And the simplest way to create such a list and have it be meaningful is to include, as is common practice in tons of list articles, only entries for people with articles on Wikipedia. Simple. One could make an argument for allowing redlinks, but that's fraught with problems better handled on the talk page, though such a list with red links (the equivalent of our current list, really, but with lots of square brackets) easily falls into DIRECTORY territory. This is the problem with our current article: it's a directory, especially given the table format, lacking only place of employment and email address (and one has "African" as a profession??). Given the lack of a rationale for this list (that is, a rationale that can be claimed to be encyclopedic--not activism, as sympathetic as I am to that cause), and given its current state (which is poor, very poor), I have to say delete. However, a pruning of this list, which I could envision as a. giving it a lead (it needs a lead) with a referenced rationale and b. pruning to keep only those entries with blue links, would immediately sway me to keep.  On a separate note: I have no problem with activism, but it needs to be done properly and usefully. There is no point in claiming SYSTEMIC BIAS in this discussion (unless to counter something obviously stupid); it's a larger Wiki matter. To those who wish to improve Wikipedia, and its underrepresentation of female scholars (for instance), let me say that Wikipedia is not some insulated male-only bubble. We reflect a. the make-up and prejudices of our larger societies and b. what reliable sources have to say. Now, all you feminists (and I include myself), you can change what's decided by a. by joining and working here, changing the system from within. Per b., that often means digging deeper ("Hark ye yet again,--the little lower layer"), and for the academic scholars, that means publishing (outside of Wikipedia), including publishing on those women, on university tenure guidelines, on male-dominated systems, on the history of women scholarship--and when you do that, you make it easy for Wikipedia writers to include that material. But the first challenge for those interested is to write Wikipedia articles for such scholars, thereby undoing, at least partly, the DIRECTORY aspect of the current article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are very good points, . Thanks for weighing in.  G S Palmer (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm going to very much support what Drmies has to say regarding encouraging the creation of individual articles on female art historians. I have not fully evaluated the Dictionary Of Art Historians as a source, but it looks to me like it's more of a (legitimate) Who's Who than a Who's Everybody, and if it is a reliable source could make a fine foundational source for a couple hundred article on individual female art historians, and to the degree that a page on Wikipedia provides visibility, create more visibility for female art historians. And getting an article on female art historians into some respectable source would both serve the activist desire in that direction and create more justification for a Wikipedia article on female art historians. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I cannot stress this enough, and I think that old hands like and  will agree with me here, that article development is the single best way to put notable scholars on the map. Creating directory-style lists, even with the best of intents, is not. Thank you Nat and G S, and I really hope that someone will do some work on this article. The pruning is easy, establishing a rationale (of the kind I sketched above, perhaps) is a bit more difficult--but surely, with so many new accounts here who may have read the Ms Magazine blog posting and are possibly actually working in the discipline, there's someone on board who can do this. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep but redlink the female art historians who do not yet have articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per David Eppstein, cleanup, trim and/or redlink non-article subject persons. Advise all newcomers to read Drmies well thought out post above. Killer Chihuahua  15:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep pending cleanup under the clear and even handed guidelines Drmies has outlined above. Strip down to bluelinks, and start writing well sourced stub/start articles for important art historians who were removed from the list. (Save a draft somewhere in your sandbox so you can add names back in as you write articles for each.) The trouble here is that women have been systematically excluded from the histories of most disciplines, and thus it is much harder to find the sources for articles on women. This is something that must be acknowledged by the 90% male editorship of Wikipedia: there is a systemic gender bias baked into the requirements for notability. Unfortunately, this is not the place to debate that, as per the scoldings above. Where is the place to have that conversation? This is a serious question. I am happy to have that conversation on my or someone else's talk page, or the talk page of a relevant project, though I am sure there is probably a proper process for this. I and others interested in this question will also be at the WikiConUSA next week if anyone wants to discuss IRL.--Theredproject (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it must be acknowledged. I suppose you could say it's baked into our notability guidelines to the extent that we require reliable sources, but it's not like it would be wise to shift away from reliable sources. Wikipedia can create much hullabaloo, but we can't really create history (better, historiography). Feminism is an ongoing struggle, and for our purpose, Wikipedia, we're still very much in what in my discipline has been called the "look, there's a woman, and there's another" stage--the stage of recuperating history. Either way, the best thing any of us can do, those who see and those who don't see various types of systemic bias, is to write the articles that are missing. But I digress--thanks for your comment, Drmies (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 *  Delete . At this point, this is one of the worst examples of a directory page that I have seen in a long time. I agree completely with : the goal is worthy, but this is the wrong means. With a little bit more effort than what went into this particular disaster, an editor could use the Dictionary Of Art Historians to create dozens or more articles on women that are art historians. That's another strange part of this list, by the way: it's a list of art historians, many are indicated to have "art historian" as a profession (rather superfluous, it would seem, in a list of art historians), but even more surprising, many have no profession at all... Anyway, to redress the (indeed existing) imbalance of coverage that currently favors male academics, it is better to create good biographies of women than listcruft like this. Like Drmies, I'd be willing to change my !vote if this article would be pruned along the lines that he indicates. --Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and Drmies, given the huge improvements to the article. --Randykitty (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And, as I've suggested above, add to each of them.  GoldenRing (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We need to be careful about slotting them in a "women" category; some of us may recall the rather loud and public struggle not that long ago about the category of women novelists (I believe it was; some writerly section), where the creation of the subcategory was seen as simply taking women out of the category of novelists. Women should not be categorized as "women art historians" unless they are also categorized under some other subcategory of "art historians" (along topical or perhaps national lines); barring that, they should simply be in the category of "art historians". --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Many thanks to those with clear heads joining the conversation (specifically: Drmies). Some of us have already admitted that the article needs severely edited/pruned if it's going to stay active -- this suggestion wasn't readily accepted by some of the first editors to flag the article (who want to simply delete). I look forward to working with those of you who are willing to put in the time to flesh out this article, including writing pages for those listed who are unlinked. Just because there is not a current page does not mean the listed individuals are unwarranted (this will be a case-by-case issue according to Wikipedia [edit: term corrected] policy). At the same time, I'd only ask some of the commenters here to consider their initial reactions to the article, and understand how their judgements negatively impact the growth of the Wikipedia community. --Studiojunk (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them. G S Palmer (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly for the helpful comment. --Studiojunk (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - notability of topic not established by reliable sources, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Staberinde (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - article has improved significantly so my previous comment is not valid anymore.--Staberinde (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:LISTN, which states, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." This seems like an appropriate cross-categorization that fulfills "recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes" since one can see similar lists at Category:Lists of women by occupation. I think there should be a List of art historians as well; Category:Art historians does exist. If this list is kept, then we should add Paula Hays Harper to the list. Here is her obituary. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To add on, I found this at an Oxford University Press bibliography-related page with the introduction stating, "A renewed and theoretically developed as well as activist feminist consciousness initially mandated the historical recovery of the contribution of women as artists to art’s international histories to counter the effective erasure of the history of women as artists by the modern discipline of art history. This has also led to a rediscovery of the contributions of women as art historians to the discipline itself." The second sentence is what I wanted to note here. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding/posting this link! --Studiojunk (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Got another one! This says, "This display presents a group of women working as historians and art historians in the Victorian period." It mentions Anna Johnson and Emilia Dilke. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * delete the vast majority don't even have articles about them, and redlinked lists are discouraged. Women in art history doesn't seem to be a sufficiently covered topic unlike some other fields. I suggest the creator focus their efforts on building a List of art historians as a first pass.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * delete though I'm very much in favor of creating articles for female art historians, and art historians in general! But women earn the majority of doctorates in art history—75% in 1998 according to the NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates—in contrast to the balance of doctorates earned in fields like philosophy, math, etc.. Note that I am NOT arguing that they have equal pay or professional opportunities, and faculty makeup would be another conversation. A List of Art Historians seems like a place to start, if you really need a list page. I'd rather just see the articles created. This thread is long, but has anyone pointed out the great American Women Novelists controversy? That might be something for the pro-list side to consider, if haven't already. Also, could some of these names be moved to the work actively being undertaken at WikiProject: Women Artists? StaceyEOB (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep while in general I think redlink lists are rather unhelpful, they can also be a tool to invite others to collaborate and participate to build article in an underserved topic area, conceptually, the list seems sufficiently noteworthy, I'd recommend that we update the the redlinks to point to draft namespace pages for the redlinked pages. It seems like the notability discussion would be better served about each entry rather than the list itself, if at all. Jared Zimmerman (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep art history is a distinct profession, and there are a large number of women in the field, so the most notable of them will justify articles by WP:PROF. The problem of redlinks is solved by making articles--and the argument just above of this particular topic leading itself particularly well to articles, is especially relevant because of the active editathons in this and related areas--a guide like this to needed articles would benefit the encyclopedia, and whether it benefits the encyclopedia is the basic criterion for everything (it;'s the specific principle behind our most basic policy, IAR if necessary). (Incidentally, tho women may be the majority of contemporary art historians, this was probably not the case before the very late 20th century,and certainly not for the 19th century and earlier.)  DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm working on this a bit and I'm doing a terrible job and having a terrible time. It's easy to beef up the Feminist art theory angle, which is what many sources are talking about, but about women in the profession, not with the sources I have. (Also, thanks for your comments, DGG.) Drmies (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Great contributions! I wonder if it would be useful to separate the list into broader historical categories: 20th/21st centuries; 19th c.; ca, 1400-1800 (Early Modern); Pre-1400? --Studiojunk (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep this is such an important and unique list, besides it becoming a bad PR issue if we delete it - it would an unfortunate to have lost this for our future new users. Red links can be a tool to collaborate on new things. This should not be a debate about the list but rather a debate about each entry for notability. Jooojay (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep this is an important contribution to an ongoing debate trying to bring gender parity to different areas of knowledge. The article needs to be improved but it is a very useful and much needed first step. I am thankful for this and for similar posts such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_architects for helping recognize parts of history that have been willfully deleted up to now. Anamarialeon (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)  — Anamarialeon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Weak keep - as the original Article For Deletion nominator, I am finding that the superior efforts by some editors to find references that I missed have brought the topic to a point where we have, if not yet 100% solidly crossed a rubicon of notability, reached the point where it seems quite likely that line will be crossed with a bit more development. To avoid the WP:DIRECTORY concerns, I feel we should limit it not just to blue links, but to blue links+names with references that suggest a high likelihood of being able to meet notability requirements should an article be created. (As example, a reference to a listing in the Dictionary of Art Historians would qualify; a basic listing on a faculty list would not), and where that reference includes mention of the individuals gender (not because we should list only those for whom the gender is a significant attribute, but for the mundane reason that, well, we've already had to take one man off of the list; names that sound feminine to a modern American may be masculine in other places and times.) For those of you new to the Articles For Deletion process, let me note that my change in stance does not stop the process; other editors have waded in with their own arguments for deletion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment My main concern is that no corresponding List of men art historians or even List of art historians exist.  I think it might be worth moving this page to the latter title, and expanding it to include men as well, possibly utilizing the contents of this version of 's sandbox, or the pages from Category:Art historians.  G S Palmer (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

G S Palmer that version comes straight from the Dictionary of Art Historians, and if you want to use it, it has to be properly footnoted before it goes out. That is why I did not post it, and kept it in my sandbox. Plus I still think there needs to be a separate one just for women. Both...okay fine. You can make the big searchable by gender...but I still think there has to be a comprehensive one for women only also. MOFOS. Because interesting things emerge, always, when you focus on the various dimensions of one category. I have more to say but I am traveling. (Vhfs (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC))
 * I was just suggesting that we use your sandbox as a resource, since you've already gone to all the work of cataloguing a large number of male art historians. (And by the way, call me ignorant, but what does "MOFOS" mean?)  G S Palmer (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The list in my sandbox is the complete list of men *and* women, not just men, of course all one would have to do is remove the 200 or so women. Again, I did not catalogue it, it comes straight from the dictionary of art historians website, so it needs to be thoroughly footnoted. Um, for the record, I think the discussion on this page, and my sandbox talk page is completely ridiculous. And a public relations disaster already. I also think that the page is being policed and/or vandalized rather than edited, and if Wikipedia editors are really 90% male, then I certainly do not belong here. High-five guys! You have driven a committed and passionate writer, with some not so bad ideas, elsewhere. In any case, I am officially on vacation now, so my work here is done, for the next little while anyway, and possibly forever. Because this has been a truly *horrible* experience. Really really awful. And I really don't think I want to have anything to do with Wikipedia ever again.

BRAVO MOFOS! (Vhfs (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC))
 * Well, there are a couple of editors in this very AfD who are trying to keep the article, which I thought was the purpose to begin with. Reasons for not including people without Wikipedia articles were given and supported, and I supplied the article with text that in my opinion warrants a "keep". So you can call people "motherfuckers" all you like, and I'll chalk that down to enthusiasm, but it's hardly the way to get people to help you save the article in the first place. And again, a footnote to that dictionary doesn't make a person notable by our standards (not every academic is notable--I'm not) any more than a link to a faculty directory at a university or a phonebook. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to encourage you to stay, especially since "keep" seems like a likely outcome, but if you do, you might want to read Civility. G S Palmer (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Vhfs We need more dedicated females users like yourself, I am sorry you have had a really horrible experience thus far with Wikipedia but I encourage you to stick around. You are doing important things, if I can be of help to you please feel free to talk to me. Jooojay (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep due to the good work by and. G S Palmer (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * G S Palmer thanks Jooojay (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * keep. Despite the creator's best efforts to argue that this is advocacy and original research, and to alienate anybody trying to improve the article, this will most likely be a useful tool in developing content related to notable women art historians. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not join Wikipedia or academia to make friends. I feel terrible for alienating a gaggle of pedantic twits who seemed to have joined Wikipedia only so they can tell people what to do. The list in its current state is completely pathetic and devoid of the original spirit in which it was proposed, and now has less entries than the online dictionary of art historians, and is even more standardized and boring. These "improvements" were made mostly by men, who are not art historians, as far as I can tell. Believe me when I tell you I am completely fascinated to see what happens next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhfs (talk • contribs) 11:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's probably just as well, Vhfs. As an academic you have privileged access to outlets for advocacy and the publication of your own research that others do not. For you to choose instead to enter a user-edited collaborative project in which ownership of material is impossible and then act as though your privilege made you the arbiter of the contributions of others would probably only lead to disappointment. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC) It occurs to me that like many academics you think of Wikipedia as not having peer review, but consider this potentially a feature rather than a bug. In fact, Wikipedia is subject to peer review, only your peers in this context are random people on the Internet. If you want to be treated as more than a random person on the Internet, find a different outlet. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is vital to keep the discussion on the content, not the contributor. Please continue to discuss the content, not the person who nominated the article/whoever voted to !delete, thanks. Tutelary (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Totally interesting and useful article. Bus stop (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So basically WP:ILIKEIT? Tutelary (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * sidebar: Is this response useful? I take a moment here not to single out Tutelary, who is only following a common Wikipedia practice, but to question whether the practice makes sense. Let's suppose we don't know Bus stop at all. If BusStop were new, this would simply be WP:BITE, shaming the new user for their lack of policy-based arguments and couching the bite in arcane WP acronyms intended to drive the point home to the audience while vexing the newbie. If BusStop is a salty old hand with thousands of edits (as happens to be the case), then presumably he's not only saying  WP:ILIKEIT, and this is just point-scoring for the debate team.  At this point, in any case, after all the hard work by User:DrMies and others, the article is clearly tending toward keep; what's the point of tendentiously haranguing Bus stop?  To make him feel bad?   To punish him for disagreeing here, in the hope that he'll be less likely to disagree in some future AfD?  This just reinforces WikiTribalism, the regrettable tendency for deletionists to mass together to support AfDs and completionists to mass together to oppose them. In addition to good faith, might we assume that not all our colleagues here are always knaves and fools? MarkBernstein (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's useful. Afds should be based on what the content is and its appropriation in policy, not in subjective emotions. I see a ton of this, saying that it's the 'not all men' or 'privileged' crowd which is mainly focusing and creating animosity towards the editors. I'm not going to comment on your theory of deletionists/inclusionists, but an 'interesting and useful article' is not an argument based on policy, which is what afds are meant to discuss. Tutelary (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure, it doesn't sound like it's policy based. But it's trivial for a WikiLawyer to take the sentiment and dress it up in the appropriate garb. Specifically, "interesting and useful" is actually not a terrible summary of WP:GNG and is actually quite a decent shorthand for WP:LISTN which is most directly at question here. But "interesting and useful" is also easy to write and comes naturally to mind; why not let people write it occasionally? 'We all know other factors can come into play; what User:Bus stop was saying, I think, was that in this case they don't. As that point has been made many times above -- and what point has not? -- it seems a small lapse to slip into casual language. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * He didn't cite WP:GNG nor any other policy. why not let people write it occasionally? Because it isn't an argument, afds should be based on merits in policy, not subjective emotions as I've said before. I could say This article has terrible formatting and often has chopped wording when referring to the first version of the article about 9/11, because it was written in haste about the event by the editor that first created it. That doesn't make the event non-notable, nor the article deletable. The conspiracy theories on why TV is Satan may have some good prose, interesting content, but that wouldn't make the article notable in its own right. Tutelary (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is focussed. This is a quality that is important. The area of study set out by the title creates a scope that is inherently interesting. The attractiveness of that scope contributes to the article's usefulness because it is a pleasant article to peruse. The columns are useful: Name, Nationality, Dates, Specialization and Profession. This makes for easy perusal. The columns of "Specialization" and "Profession" advantageously provide more than one piece of information in some instances. I think it's an overall good article. I see no reason to delete it. I would change the name to "List of female art historians". The term "women" is politicized and by contrast the term "female" tends to be more simply indicative of gender. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I considered that possibility when I moved it from it's original title, List of art historians who happen to be women, but thought it would be best to not change it too much. Your title rolls off the tongue a bit easier, though.  G S Palmer (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/#.U4JkHdT9BUM.twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhfs (talk • contribs) 23:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets notability guidelines. The need for this list is now articulated in the lede. gobonobo  + c 14:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Vhfs, what are you trying to imply? I, myself am a woman and I've been editing Wikipedia profusely. Sure I had a few vandals vandalize my userpage, add 'cockblack master' specifically. You just shrug it off. Tutelary (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Vhfs it is offensive to link that here - because it has nothing to do with what is going in here. You received no rape or death threats and as far as I can tell no-one even referenced your gender during this debate - on the other hand you have called editors mofos and accused them of all sorts of nefarious deeds mostly based on their gender so if anyone is guilty of what is described In that article it's you. Please assume good faith and stop attacking the motives of editors here with passive aggressive links to horrible descriptions of misogynistic harassment on the internet, which is exactly what you didn't receive here - instead I see editors patiently explaining that the main reasons you detailed for keeping this article were actually excellent reasons to delete, since you admitted the topic isn't covered outside Wikipedia and it therefore must exist here first - which belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the project. Your behavior here has been esp immature esp since you claim to be an academic, and if you really want to fight sexism on Wikipedia this is not the front lines, it's very far from it. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Very uncouth, very faux pas. Wow. Would this have a parallel to Godwin's law? Shenme (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Most educational and encyclopedic. Has been and continues to be the subject of significant discussion in numerous secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. As is customary, I have been watching this debate since my initial contribution. At first I was inclined towards deletion for this page (please see above), on the ground that at the time it was an indiscriminate list and therefore breached our guidelines on such matters. Later, following excellent work by and, and having carefully read the continuing debate, I changed my view and came to support the retention of the substantially improved page (again, please see above). The discussion here has been most enlightening, with many editors making good and useful points, and has certainly resulted in a net improvement to Wikipedia.
 * However, although we have made substantial progress in improving the article and understanding the relevant issues, I feel that some contributors to this discussion have been profoundly and repeatedly intemperate. I am also deeply concerned that one editor in particular consistently ascribes to all of us a particular privileged position in society, and assumes that our opinions and actions are driven by this position. I would find this offensive even if I had such a privileged position, as it takes a fundamentally dehumanising view of individuals and ascribes consistent malice to all members of a given class, rather than considering each person as separate and equally worthy of respect. This alone makes it very hard to maintain good faith in the words and actions of this disruptive editor. However, I find this editor's comments personally upsetting on a deeper level. I myself am not one of society's privileged few, but not once has this editor bothered to address this either privately or in this debate; indeed, they haven't even bothered to check my status. I have plenty of experience of being de-privileged by white, anglo-saxon, heterosexual, protestant, able-bodied, able-minded, monogamously-married, middle-aged, traditionally-educated cis males, but it is rare to be de-privileged by someone who ought, if their own claims of personal identity are to be taken at face value, to be on my side. Instead, I am swept up in the assumption of white masculinity, and suffer the blanketing scorn of a relative newcomer here, simply because I'm trying to do the best I can as an editor of Wikipedia. I find it remarkably unpleasant to have to undergo such name-calling, combined with repeated assertions about how we ought to do things, what kinds of beliefs we should hold, and what kinds of things Wikipedia should cover, all delivered from a position that is itself entirely that of the privileged academic. I find this hectoring, disruptive, and ultimately hypocritical. It is not constructive to claim that Wikipedia is adopting one privileged position when the alternative being offered is simply that of current academic discourse, which is another equally privileged position in our society. It is particularly regrettable that despite being asked several times for a moderation of tone, one editor in particular has continued to be excessively rude, disruptive, and unable to work within the constraints of fair and rational debate. I hope this does not affect the outcome of this deletion debate, but I also hope we can address the problem of an editor who consistently does not assume the good faith of other contributors to this project, and instead appears to follow requests for moderation with more extreme comments. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * HEY! ! "white, anglo-saxon, heterosexual, protestant, able-bodied, able-minded, monogamously-married, middle-aged, traditionally-educated cis males": I resemble that remark! I checked at least six of those boxes. As for the meat of your comment, I am an administrator here, so check it, I'm super-privileged, wielding a phallus as well (read your Lacan, people: a phallus is not a penis). I don't want to go into too much detail, since this discussion is already too long and will hopefully be closed soon, but I'm somewhat loath to act administratively. I did leave a note, a kind of warning, if you will: no one appreciates being called "motherfucker" (it's kind of a sexist term as well), and I for one do not appreciate, like you, being lumped in with some group. Having said that, Joojay below points out some redeeming factors, and those are probably why I haven't acted more forcefully. So let's try and cover this with the "mantel der liefde", as the Dutch would say. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment As a newer, female user to wikipedia myself, I can say it is an intimidating place sometimes. Clearly Vhfs does not feel welcome here in wikipedia (as she mentioned above) and has lashed out in reaction. And most of this is caused by her not understanding how to edit/basic order of things (such as write articles first, then make lists after) because she is a new user and when she made minor mistakes it caused established users to get upset and need to correct the errors (and instead of admitting mistakes she became more defensive). My issue with this is how we as a community respond to mistakes and the unforgiving nature of not welcoming new users (esp. new users with good intentions). VHFS has made some much needed suggestions, I think we needed a list like this one and I hope we see more from this user.Jooojay (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

(Vhfs (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC))
 * Keep and split The list has been basically re-written since the nomination, adapting it to Wikipedia standards. In fact, the introduction now reads like an article on women in art history and at least its second half should be transferred to the article women artists, imo. If this list is intended to be about notable female art historians, then the text should be about their status in art history, not about women's status in art history or even arts in general. That said, I want to stress two additional points:
 * 1) A complete list of all women art historians (as intended by the list's creator) is completely beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Other editors have already elaborated on this in extensive fashion, so I just want to note that this touches the very principles of Wikipedia, and it's been quite a bold effort (to say the least) by vhfs to interpret its "user-drivenness" as a free ticket for establishing her own agenda and just that. You don't join a chess club and then ask, "So, who wants to play some checkers?", do you?
 * 2) On the other hand, I actually do think lists (and not just internal working lists) can benefit from adding redlinks. Now, I know that pretty much every current guideline urges editors to do anything but that (and, instead, to write sub-stubs paraphrasing those external links anyone can find via using his or her preferred search engine anyway), yet the problem with only leaving blued entries in such a list is that, in doing so, we deliberately undermine its advantages over, say, categories, using Wikipedia's writing process as a reference instead of the person's academic reputation. Being a geographer by profession, I know there're some hugely influential geographers missing in the list of geographers, while some barely notable ones are included. This isn't just a compromise by which we take some losses (or whatever you might call it), but the ignorance of our own standards (i.e., notability is created outside of Wikipedia). We should either explicitly indicate that these are merely article index pages, or allow for the addition of some (!) redlinks selected by a person able and willing to judge the related topic. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Axolotl, thanks, but let me take issue with one little thing: the "second half" isn't about women artists. (Besides the fact that the issue of women artist and woman art historian is mixed up inextricably: see talk page.) The WCA, for instance, is an organization run by art historians, even though it also includes artists. Likewise, that statistical note is about art historians, not artists. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not sure if you have noticed this...but I am not someone who merely accepts the status quo, as it is organized or presented to me in Wikipedia, or anywhere else. "Be realistic demand the impossible!" is one of my most cherished sayings. And I am not defensive in the slightest. I have a different vision for what Wikipedia could and should be! Get over it. I think you have ruined my list to the point where it is completely unrecognizable and laughable frankly. I cannot believe Sister Wendy is now on it, who is a children's television entertainer as far as I am concerned, and has never ever been seriously cited in any academic context that I have had anything to do with, and you have taken out all the French and Spanish art historians, and there are only two Italian ones left. Which is pretty funny, if you know anything about art, you might know that Italy and France are kind of important! I hope you get that fixed, and that you have not alienated all the art historians yet, so they might offer to help you.
 * Vhfs, it is not your list so to speak. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, where people can edit existing articles and improve their content. In short, you don't own the article. Even if you are the page creator, you simply do not own the article and cannot lock out any edits from anyone due to you not liking them. (Though if you have a reason not to like it, you can bring it up on the talk page and explain why they shouldn't be on the list.) Also, you don't have to accept the status quo, you can do a proposal to get the rules changed, and if enough people agree with you on the way, then it will be implemented. Wikipedia has its policies and guidelines, and afd is one of them. Tutelary (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Vhfs, ever noticed that if you yell at people and tell them they are laughable, that they then for some strange reason are less inclined to listen to you and work with you towards a common goal (a good list)? --Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't delete. Not sure why the table. It needs to be alphabetized. It shouldn't be JUST women, but FEMINISTS. There are probably some men that belong on the list, too. Feminism should be the philosophical or political stance of the art historian in order to be included. There aren't that many. I'll work on it, too. ----Sue Maberry (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. (talk)Go ahead, make that new list. I am all for lists. The more lists the better as far as I am concerned. There should be one for just women though because feminist or no, the treatment of male and female academics in the field, is different. Guys get bigger paychecks, more funding, better offices, more opportunities, and more fun all round. I want women to know the score, and we cannot do that that without understanding all the dimensions of the status of women in the field, versus the status of men in the field. Who knew analyzing statistics about art historians could be so *hot*!?

I have to tell you this story...this semester one of my male students took me aside and very earnestly told me, that if I was nicer to people I would have more friends and get more support for my projects. (Vhfs (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC))


 * You say, "I want women to know the score". The "score" consists of many parameters of women's contribution to and involvement in the field of art history and related fields. It can't be reduced to "bigger paychecks, more funding, better offices, more opportunities, and more fun all round" and it probably should not in an article such as this. This despite the fact that this article distinguishes between male and female. Researchers or merely curious readers have a part of a database of sorts at their fingertips with an article such as this. Aren't you referring to a hypothetical different article with a different title? I'm glad you initiated and worked on this article. But I take exception to the purpose that you are suggesting this article (list) serves. This article also serves entirely unrelated purposes. Bus stop (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Maberry: The table is alphabetized by last name, although sortable on other criteria. As for a list of feminist art critics, that would seem to be a different list (surely with some overlap); the existence of this list would not rule out that as a separate article, and there is a good case to be made for a feminist list's existence. Do you specifically believe that a gender-based list should not (also) exist, and if so, why? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's fine to make a List of feminist art historians, though at some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in. The purpose of this list was women art historians and that's the topic of discussion, so they don't need to be feminist (of one wave or another) to be included. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Improving The List
It now appears that the list is headed for Keep and that it is, in Wikipedia terms, significantly improved. Vhfs observes, though, that a good deal has been lost. "You have taken out all the French and Spanish art historians,: Vhfs writes, "and there are only two Italian ones left." Plus, we've inserted a children’s TV personality, Sister Wendy, who Vhfs says really doesn't belong.

It's not hard to see how this can happen. On average, English wikipedia will have more thorough coverage of art historians in the English-speaking world. Editors working on a deadline to identify the most notable art historians from the original list will find more existing articles for people who work in English, and will find it easier to create and extend articles when the subjects work primarily in English. The one-week deadline of an AfD worsens this systemic bias: when time is short, editors reach for the low-hanging fruit.

I suggest listing the currently-omitted art historians at a convenient place -- perhaps the talk page. Provide, where possible, some lead references to their work. That will allow you, and others, to extend the list by identifying additional notable art historians and providing additional information about their contribution and notability. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion for improving the list as this point is probably better placed on the article's talk page than on the AFD page. As for the exclusion of Sister Wendy, I do not think we should let that editor's insulting derision dictate content of the article any more than we let it dictate the flow of the AFD discussion. Sister Wendy is the host of a number of BBC art documentaries popular among adults, as well as the author of many books, both on art and otherwise. Whether those who aim their work at the common people rather than the privileged academic audience should be excluded is something that can be discussed on the Talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * comment I am sorry I made fun of sister Windy Nat Gertler. Not really. Look what I found!https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Historien_de_l%27art_fran%C3%A7ais, And then...https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Storici_dell%27arte_italiani, And then...https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_d%27historiens_de_l%27art_et_de_th%C3%A9oriciens_de_l%27art :) (Vhfs (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC))
 * , you are welcome to translate some of those articles into English, and add them to the list. G S Palmer (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And a citation from the Daily Telegraph and from a peer-reviewed academic journal now solidify Sister Wendy's status. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * comment. This may not be the place to bring this up (I don't know where would be), but I think it is seriously worth considering the possibility that User:Vhfs is not only trolling but also hoaxing. Having first taken the assertions of being an academic expert at face value, I now think it highly likely that this user is in fact a disgruntled student trying not-so-subtly to make the academic art historian Material deleted by another user for WP:OUTING concerns look like a fool. Is there any way of putting a stop to this? I'm inclined to think eradicating the whole edit history and letting others start from scratch might be the way to go. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a bit drastic, and I would also encourage you not to jump to conclusions. I think Vhfs is probably just reacting to the fact that one of her first articles got nominated for deletion, and is feeling irate.  Once she has time to cool down I'm sure she'll want to put all this behind her.  G S Palmer (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Andreas Philopater's comments might be wrong or right, and might also be a little bit too close to WP:OUTING to be entirely comfortable. Let's not speculate. I think User:Vhfs has given us no reason to doubt her academic expertise. If she has found this debate upsetting, she is not the first Wikipedian to find AfD an unwelcome surprise and she will probably not be the last. I see no point in speculating; let's drop the stick, Snow Close this AfD as Keep, and go back to improving the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not snow close, snow close is for when the opinion seems unanimous by all other editors towards !keep when only the nominator is the dissenting. There have been convincing arguments by both side, and would not qualify for a snow keep as consensus needs to be assessed. Wait until the 7 days are up. Tutelary (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem, Tutelary. A quick scroll upward suggests that, at this moment, the last 13 opinions were all keep. But there's no rush. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * So copy/pasting an identifiable living person's social media profile to an "anonymous" Wikipedia userpage is not a matter of concern? It's not something I would want to happen to me. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's distasteful, but maybe you could just leave a note on her talk page about it. G S Palmer (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Andreas: Please review WP:OUTING - even connecting the user to a specified outside person in trying to suggest it may not be then bridges some privacy concern. I have edited the specific accusation out of your comment on that basis, and hope that an administrator might review its inclusion so that it can be deleted from the record if need be. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Added: I've flagged oversight; the material will be restored if I'm off-base. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. On the basis of her behavior here, I think that there is reason to suspect that User:Vhfs is not an academic but a troll with an agenda to discredit feminist editing by ridiculous and extreme conduct. I found it odd that while the original list contained a horde of black-text nonentities it missed such a distinguished historian as Dame Joan Evans, which suggests that the creator of the list knew little about the topic. Do I have any proof of these suspicions? None whatsoever. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC).
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.